I think use rubber-stamp a relatively appropriate description of NPC of China. we know that NPC is one of the legislation institution, but in fact, every year's two sessions only to listen to not to give pelple's opinion and will to the government. We need our voice to be heard and we expect discussion and debate with each reprensetative's involve, but not to only hear their decisions and accept them silently. we need renpresentitives and government who can really represent the will of people and serve people.

A critical reader ought to get very suspicious at any article that is so accusatory and yet bereft of solid evidence. The article accuses the NPC of these major things: superficiality, "rubber" stamping, etc. But it offers next to no evidence that these NPC procedures are inconsequential and mere "rubber stamps."

From what I know of the Chinese political system, you can made make a solid case that it is far more democratic than most western "democratic" political systems. One discusses the issues in a reasoned way and consensus is built because the people are, for the most part, rational. Proposals are rejected by debate. Logical and evidential flaws in proposals are spotted and rejected just in this way. They do not rely on bickering, grandstanding, partisan rhetoric, and are not beholden to their financial donors and do not have religious dogmas to promote. They all have one major agenda: to find what is in the best interest for China.

The only evidence that the author adduces to suggest that this system is what he claims of it is the past history of near consensus. But consensus itself is no evidence of of the lack of true deliberation. Among rational people, consensus can often be reached. That is why 98% of all climate scientists can agree that global warming is substantially man made and almost 100% of all working biologists agree that evolution is true. These people are scientists and scientists are reasonable people for the most part. likewise with China's elites from what I have heard and read of them.

But on the other hand, consensus is rare among the petty, venal and ignorant. That is why it is so rare in western "democracies."

The author does show some sensibility towards the fact that the world is indeed much bigger than just one culture or two. Applying one's owe positive experiences to the rest of the world is attempting and shouldn't be discouraged as valuable suggestions.

It's up to China, to learn it, take it or reject it or do something in-between by inventing something new that's taylored to the current state of China with its unique history.

No one-party state survives the ten years after hosting an Olympics as the residents of Berlin, Moscow and Sarajevo will attest. Let’s hope the powers-that-be in Beijing manage a smooth regime change – for once in their history!

Well I've been here in 2002 and I have not noticed any change in the political arena. HKTV news I get from HK is heavily censored for example as it was 10 years ago. Same with the web. Fake products, guanxi, corruption, lack of morality, are as before. As usual its just about 'face'.

Haha,U R be tricked.~~Actually,"Gold bless you."is a Cold Joke.Most Chinese are do not belive God,but Gold.Haha,I'm Chinese,I can understand Laughing Point.I'm sure publius50 and Patience to you are Chinese.

Why do you all keep on condemning China?You yourself are in a massive trouble.We are developing much faster than you,we are doing better than you.Do you think your political system can make China even faster than we do now when you blame China's.So can you expain why your economy grows like a snail worms?Let the fact tell the truth~~~

Dude did you even finish reading the article? The author is admitting "your" NPC is getting better and sometime offer some form of resistance. The last part of the article is actually "self"-depricatingly joking about the political theatre in the US. This whole "China" against "you westerners" mentality is getting old and counter-productive in this increasingly small global village.

go to China to find that the grassroots majority of handsome are weak, wan ,helpless, mentally tortured ,opprssed by the China ruling bloc who frantically conspire to ruin their career development for the lewd and evil purpose of grabbing the Chinese female they desire to keep as concubines. , and it is a consequence of China ruling bloc's aberrant, imbruted, over animalized ,lewd lust.

This is obvious violation and defiance of human rights, and even enough to be antihuman in nature ,though latently, as the China ruling bloc conspire to make them degenerate and face extinction

Someone in these comments mentioned that public debates are important. That is true. But debates that the public aren't privy to also have their merits.

In many ways, western liberal democracies are dysfunctional because politicians are always mindful of the public eye. This public scrutiny, with the aid of newspapers, distorts the atmosphere and can in fact discourage honest discussions and compromise amongst the politicians. In the end, public debates often beget results that are most certainly NOT in the public's interest with a sideshow of grandstanding and sometimes fistfights, brinskmanship and name-calling. That debt ceiling debate in August of last year is a classic example.

We always assume that because of the vote politicians are driven to work hard in the public interest and is at the beck and call of the common citizen. That is the theory. Politicians work hard only to get re-elected.

hi there, as you know , even beasts don't oppress the members with brighter fur , aesthetic advantages in their group , even beasts dont' forbid their hunt for the living prey . Even the beast don't force them to eat bones, carrion only. However , only China ruling bloc frantically ruin the profession rights of the grassroots majority of handsome in China, frantically cut the throat of the bread-obtaining of the grassroots majority of the Chinese handsome , make them degenerate in a frantic, latent and antihuman conspiracy...

So the China ruling bloc is much more imbruted , animalized than beasts.

Nobody rational (not sure if ewakorn is included in that category) is calling for an overthrow of the CPC in any foreseeable future because such an overthrow would cause too much chaos and probably throw China back into the third world.

But there are multiple factions within the CPC, ranging from ultra-conservative Maoists to liberal capitalists.

Want to see China pulled out of poverty quickly? Then support the liberals.

When fellow posters keep bragging that PRC's political-economic model is invincible by citing the double-digit growth in recent decades, the recent economic news is quite shocking:

(1) China's trade deficit is record high in February -- US$31.5 billion -- which is much higher than the expected US$7.9 billion;

(2) Forget about the double digit growth. According to Premier Wen, China's growth rate this year will be less than 8%;

(3) On Monday, RMB recorded the largest single day fall since the exchange rate relaxation in 2005.

China's economy seems to be more vulnerable than Japan's. Japan didn't record a huge trade deficit until last year even though the Yen rose much higher and faster and longer than the RMB has been.

Some posters keep citing the Pew's survey that the majority of Chinese respondents are satisfied with the Chinese government (actually the central government but not the local governments). But such responses are based on the record that the Beijing government can deliver.

If Beijing cannot continue to deliver, then the saistifactory level may change.

"(1) China's trade deficit is record high in February -- US$31.5 billion -- which is much higher than the expected US$7.9 billion;"
.
Due to Chinese New Years.... Even when China was running at record 10% trade surplus, it still ran a trade deficit in the month of February.
-----
"(2) Forget about the double digit growth. According to Premier Wen, China's growth rate this year will be less than 8%;"
.
Actually the PRC's (Wen's) *official* economic growth targets are not the same as what they actually expect to achieve in *private*. Wen set an economic target growth rate of 8.0% over the past 6 years, but China has outperformed that target every single year (at around 10% a year growth) except the global-recession year of 2008. Most analyst believe that Wen lowered China's *official* growth target to send a message to his underlings to curb the bubbles that are building up thanks to the 2009 stimulus. I'm guessing that Wen *privately* actually expects China to grow at 9.X% in 2012.
-----
"(3) On Monday, RMB recorded the largest single day fall since the exchange rate relaxation in 2005."
.
The PBOC sets RMB exchange rates every morning against the USD and allows the RMB to deviate by 0.5% of the official exchange rate. The RMB "dropped" (not really because exchange rates are set by the PBOC) on Monday because the PBOC signalled that it was going to stall RMB appreciation until China's trade surplus picks back up, leading investors to sell the RMB for the safer asset in the USD, because if the RMB isn't expected to appreciate in the near future, then there's no point in owning it. (There's no point in owning a riskier asset over a safer one if there's no chance that the riskier asset would appreciate against the safer one.)
-----
Common ewakorn why don't you leave the China economic bashing to the real economists... You should instead bash China on social issues, which is your expertise.

BTW Japan's nominal growth rate is expected to be good this year because of deficit-driven economic stimulus follow Fukushima, and because the economic activity that temporarily stopped after Fukushima in 2011 is expected come back in 2012. But look ahead to Japan's economic forecasts in 2013 and 2014, it still looks dismal.

After adjusting for consumer-purchase-inflation, Japan hasn't grown for ~15 years. Even laggard Southern European economics such as Italy, Spain, and Greece have outperformed Japan during that time frame.

And this is discounting the fact that Japan will eventually need to account for its massive debt, and unlike America which issues the global reserve currency in the USD, Japan cannot simply QE away its JPY debt to foreign owners like America could.

There's really no way you can plausibly say that "China's economy seems to be more vulnerable than Japan's."

Also BTW, China's economy doesn't actually need to slow drastically (and it probably won't in any foreseeable future) for people to demand change in the CPC.

Most of the pro-CPC posters here are actually angry little Western Chinese who don't actually live in China and therefore don't actually understand what's *really* going on with corruption and wealth discrepancy in China.

They may visit China once a year, visit the Shanghai World Financial Center or the Jinmao Tower and believe that China is doing awesome, but they don't actually understand what's going on in China.

There's a very good reason why people such as Wen Jiabao and Bo Xilai are *pretending* very hard to seriously want to develop a "harmonious society" because they want to calm the anger at wealth discrepancy within China. Their rhetoric may fool some locals and most Western Chinese, but it's not going to fool most real local Chinese forever...

To the rubber stamp in China:
If you don't take any measures to protect the grassroot majority of handsome 's rights in career development . Then it'll add up to one more evidence of your nonsense nature .

--The killing of Bin Laden was a US fabrication. He died of renal failure years before the Pakistan raid. (NB: no one appears to have told Al-Qaeda, which acknowledged the killing and swore revenge)

--American automakers have no overseas sales. (NB: General Motors sells more cars in China than in the US. Its biggest venture is in Shanghai, where watchingchina claims to live)

--The theory of comparative advantage in international trade is a fiction. When China trades with the US, it supplies valuable products to the US, but the US provides nothing of value in return, except dollars that it is deliberately devaluing as part of its policy to destroy China. (NB: Nobody seems to have told China that it is not in its interests to trade with the US)

--Ai Weiwei, Liu Xiaobo, Zhan Lianhai, Tan Zuoren, Gao Zhisheng, Yu Jianrong and in fact anyone who opposes the government in any way at all are all CIA agents!

--China isn't communist. (NB: the central government's web site states: ""The Communist Party of China (CPC) takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents as its guide to action and theoretical bases.""

--China isn't Leninist (even though the Chinese government says it is. What do they know?)

--China doesn't manipulate its currency because all its foreign-exchange reserves came from trade (NB: Go figure that one)

--No democracy has ever grown by more than 3% or 4% for any extended time. (NB: Japan, a democracy, grew at an average of 10% in the 1960s and 5% in the 1970s.)

--All citizens of China can travel to Hong Kong and Taiwan whenever they want. (NB: The Hong Kong government's visitor scheme excludes four-fifths of the mainland population. Taiwan does not yet permit PRC citizens to visit as individuals.)

--There is no repression or corruption of any kind in China.

**AND NOW, from March 2012, another beauty:

--The US supported Japanese forces in the war against China. Yes, that would be the same Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor, and which the US fought a four-year war against, culminating in the dropping of two atomic bombs. But at the same time the US was fighting these mortal enemies in the Pacific, it was simultaneously supporting them in China. Who knew? Ripley's Believe It Or Not, eat your heart out!

According to America and England's credibility, Bin Laden's death is a puzzle, so was WMD !!

If China manipuated RMB, so is Japan, Korea and other many nations. So is US of A, printing money.

"Ai Weiwei, Liu Xiaobo, Zhan Lianhai, Tan Zuoren, Gao Zhisheng, Yu Jianrong" All these Chinese either received money/fund from US-NGO/CIA-donation. It is not a surprise at all. Ai wei wei's art work depend on western market.

China isn't communist to me either, but going to be socialist !

"Taiwan does not yet permit PRC citizens to visit as individuals" You need to update yourself. I think they can go as individual to Taiwan and HK.

"excludes four-fifths of the mainland population." I don't think 4/5, but a lot. 4/5 is overrated. You need to update yourself.

So you think the US invented the assassination of Bin Laden? Al-Qaeda doesn't!

You might be right about Taiwan. Don't think you're right about Hong Kong, there's been no recent change to the visitor scheme.

Moot point on activists. Anyone who ever comes into conflict with the Chinese government is automatically accused of being funded by hostile foreign forces. Anyone watching from outside can see the absurdity of this. It denies the possibility that anyone in China can have any sincere disagreement with their government. Presumably the entire population of Wukan are also foreign spies. Ho hum.

"the assassination of Bin Laden"
There is really no proof of that. WMD is totally invented by USA and your beloved country--England, plus western media put more flame to the fire..
Hong Kong is much earlier to accept individual Chinese tourists. You need to update yourself, but not all Chinese can visit HK, certainly much more than 1/5 of Chinese population. Hong Kong can't accept so many visitors from China anyway. Infrastructure is not enough.

LiuXiBo was found accepted money from a foundation, something like 30,000USD yearly. No, not all activitist against China were so lucky to receive money/donation from NGO/CIA.

Wukan case proved that China is willing to change. Also proved people power works, but in a local way, not influenced by foreigner.

People like you are just too eager to put your finger in China. You think Chinese without western idea/help cannot survive, Chinese government will kill them all. In fact Chinese government is more eager to change in order to be survived in China. Only you don't see it and you want it quick to creat Chaos.

Under the Scheme, around 270 million Mainland residents in the above 49 cities with permanent household registration are eligible to apply for the relevant exit endorsement from the relevant Mainland authorities.

270 million. What's the population of China? The page was last updated on 15 August, 2011.

I'm afraid you still don't understand the point of the Bin Laden comment. Even Bin Laden's own organisation has acknowledged that he was assassinated and has sworn revenge on the US. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what is.
It's obviously not good enough for our friend wc. Maybe the US is secretly funding Al-Qaeda, just like they did with Japan and the Nazis in WWII?

Yes, I should butt out of China and mind my own business, leave you all to wallow in your self-serving lies. Oh, wait a minute... where are we? We're on the message board of an English magazine!

Even 270 million Mainlander is too much for Hong Kong to digest.
If I see the dead Bin Laden I will believe it. Too many lies with the USA and England alike!! Too bad we live in the world full of lies...
Specially those don't share our culture and curse us centuries long.
Since it is a english magazine it will protect english interests!! Simple !!

The REALLY funny thing is that all of this comes from an old white person who cannot even speak Chinese and, according to his various ESL forum accounts, moved to China only ~5 years ago to teach English for 8000 RMB a month.

Al Qaeda itself acknowledged Bin Laden's killing.
.
Are you suggesting that the US and Al Qaeda are in the same conspiracy to fool whomever they are trying to fool?
.
(Your Likely Response: It must be a Zionist conspiracy where both the US government and Al Qaeda are Zionist pawns, designed into fooling the world so that the Jews can remain the puppet masters behind the world. Also I'm sure the Illuminati and the Free Masons are involved somehow....)

The REALLY funny thing is that all of this comes from an old white person who cannot even speak Chinese and, according to his various ESL forum accounts, moved to China only ~5 years ago to teach English for 8000 RMB a month.
-----------------

You are doing your homework and this white old man now claimed he is an old China hand!! He was probably suffering a lot when he was in China, or a chinese girl turned him down. LOL

SIR – You say “It is true that house prices do not plummet like a brick”. That may not always be true. In Calgary, prior to the 1983 recession, house prices had been rising as they are now. In September 1983 my home had been valued at C$265,000. I put it on the market, but by December of that year prices had dropped by maybe 40%. My home finally sold in July 1984 for C$131,000. That 50% drop in value happened in just a few months and my home was one of thousands in the same position. There were many expensive homes that became vacant when the equity was so negative that the owners just walked away. It was only in 2000 that house prices recovered. Even today, I could still buy that same house for less than C$265,000.

BTW when watchingchina aka Larry Romanoff finally reads these posts, I can just imagine the veins popping out of his decrepit hateful face.

@ Larry Romanoff, if you're going to spam anti-Semitic hate propaganda everywhere, at least try not to do it under your real name. See this digital record of you is going to show up every time someone Google's your name for the rest of your life.

SIR – Housing markets, like most markets, have self-correcting forces that guard against the sort of meltdown that you project (“After the fall”, June 18th). When home prices rise too rapidly, consumers do what they've been doing for generations—they simply back away from the market. Many will postpone their decision to buy a home, others will buy a home that costs less and still others will negotiate a better deal for themselves. As sales slow, appreciation rates will settle down or even fall back a bit, giving incomes a chance to catch up with home values and giving builders a chance to catch up in supply-constrained markets. But to argue, as you did, that housing prices will tumble and start a worldwide recession is nothing short of hysteria.

Looks like Larry Romanoff *failed* at investing in real estate, just like he *failed* at his ESL scam business, *failed* at his previous business of selling musical equipment in Calgary, and *failed* at writing about the world. If I could use one word to describe Larry Romanoff, guess what it would be?

BTW Jerry Howard is from the National Association of Home Builders, so he obviously has a pro real estate appreciation bias. Mr. Howard didn't take into account the ripple economic effects of crashing home prices, which obviously later resulted in the 2008 financial crisis and global recession.

Someone wrote that Capitalism was "too complex" for a governing authority to direct. That isn't true. Rather, it is too greedy to want anyone directing it.
What is the source of this almost pathological propaganda that so many Right-Wingers preach, about how when people have money they will want to "try their hand at government" or to "have a say"?
That makes as much sense as going to a brain hospital and "trying your hand" at a transplant.
I for one am glad that China's system is receiving so much attention, because in all of this debate the pernicious flaws of the multi-party system will be laid so bare that no one will be able to defend them.
"Political reform is the great unspoken" in China because nobody is interested enough to speak about it. The number of Chinese who want a US or UK-style multi-party democracy is about the same as the number of Americans who want communism.
Westerners, most especially Americans, seem rigidly unable to accept that different countries and cultures have different ways of doing things, and that the Western way is not the only way nor the "right" way. It just happens to be our way.
So forget China's political system. If they are happy with it - and they are - why should we care? What is it with this pathological determination to force our ways onto another nation of people? It's none of our business.
And to suggest that the Western democracies are "more flexible" or can move faster, is just silly. It's the one-party system that enables China to react so quickly. Does anyone honestly suggest that Europe or the UK or the US today are being "flexible"? They've been mired in their self-inflicted trauma ward (because it's too complex for any governing authority to direct) for 4 years now and continue to sink.
And one of the primary causes is all the infighting between multi-party ideologies.
The more you examine it, the more you have to admit the multi-party system is a really stupid creation. It is far better to just pull people together and get things done, as we do in every school, hospital, corporation, charity, whatever.
One of the things I admire about the pragmatism of the Chinese people is that they don't have the tooth-fairy myth that the man on the street is competent either to direct the future of his country or to select those who are competent. And if we Westerners look at this with an open mind and some honesty, we must admit the same.
Here is a (longish) article that compares China's sytem of government with that of the West. If you read this, it may leave you with some serious doubts about Western government systems.
Let's look at government and politics: http://www.bearcanada.com/china/freedemocracy.html

Speaking of the pace of development and of decisio-making, the other day I was reading that the UK intends to build a high speed rail between London and Birmingham, a distance of about 400 kms. It has taken more than five years to make the decision; the final study and the acquisition of land will take another ten years; and the construction another 10 years. It is expected that the railway will be open by 2032. How long did it take for China to build a 7,000 kilometer high speed rail system? Which of the two is faster? And there might be delays, too. Though I do not recall the cost of construction, I am sure it will cost more than the cost to build the high-speed rail between Beijing and Shanghai, which covers more than 1,300 kilometres.

Watchingchina wrote, "If they are happy with it - and they are - why should we care?"

The two factors that seem pretty common in China these days:

1. Many are sick and tired of Western lectures -- viewing much of them not applicable to China, and some even downright hypocritical.

2. Many are at the same time quite dissatisfied -- even angry - with their government!

As I wrote elsewhere, it is often better to let each society evolve its own system, its own dynamics, its own state of equilibrium. The West does have a lot to share. But the West also has much to learn -- but for that, it needs to acquire a sense of humility first. You can't fill a cup that's already full.

Jean Michel, I read those same numbers and recall the cost being quoted at between 35 billion and 50 billion Euros - for 400 Kms. of track - and 10 or more years to construct.

The Shanghai - Beijing HSR - 1,300 Kms. as you pointed out - took two years to build and cost about 10 billion. I know because I live here, and I watched it being done.

It's the same in Canada. My home province wanted to build an HSR of about 300 Kms. The "study" would take 5 years and cost 50 million dollars, and the track would also take 10 years to lay. I don't recall the total cost, but it was an order of magnitude more than the SH-BJ route. Amazing.

One of China's advantages is the deep labor pool. In Canada, with the small population, they would hire 25 people who would lay 1 meter of track each day.

At one point, China hired more than 40,000 workers to begin construction on maybe 100 different sections of the track at the same time, so each group needed only to lay maybe 15 Kms. of track. And at the same time, they had many other groups building all the stations.

It is sometimes staggering to see the speed with which things can be done here. In Shanghai last year, some construction firm completed an entire 13- story apartment building in 24 hours - just to see if it could be done.

But then - and I hate to say this, but it's true - that's the benefit of "democracy". By the time every constituent has his say and defends his "rights", and every lobbyist and banker has been satisfied, there's not much left for the common man.

This is true. I remember having the same thought when reading about the UK's high-speed rail project. One of the reasons it takes so long is that citizens of the UK have well-established property rights and no one - even the government - can take away their land without going through the proper procedures. Some people might consider this to be a strength of the society and an advantage rather than a drawback. I know that expropriation of rural land in China is a huge political issue and a major contributor to unrest. Perhaps the system serves China's best interests for the stage of development it's at now. That might change once the major infrastructure projects have been built and incomes have risen further. Once people have achieved a certain level of wealth they become more interested in how to protect it, if the experience of other countries is any guide.

Let me make an analogy. If I see you do something and say to you that it is dishonest, you would look at it and agree - because the truth, once exposed, would be obvious.

But If I were to say to you that you are really arrogant, the very best you would be able to do is to say, "I'll accept that if you say so, but I really don't see it."

And the reason is that arrogance is inevitably accompanied by a blindness that is almost incurable.

Now, I am not telling you that I think you are arrogant, but all of the Western reporting, writing, critiquing, of China, comes from the same place. And that place is the Imperialist and Colonialist mentality. We are unaware of it, and most people, probably including you, would argue to the death that I'm wrong. But I'm not wrong.

Let me tell you a short story. I was once a regional executive in Canada for an international management consulting firm; our head office was in NYC.

And every time I an my colleagues met with the NYC corporate executives, we wanted to kill them. They were very nice people, but their attitude to Canada and other countries was very different from that to their own US branches.

Canada was a colony to milk, nothing else, while the US was "American" - "real" offices, real people, totally different mentality.

I daresay most executives from the non-imperial countries would tell you the same story. That imperial-colonial mentality is so deeply rooted it may never disappear.

And that is the problem so many people have with the Economist's writings on China. They come from the soul of colonialism, sincere though they may appear. Everything is viewed through that lens.

If China were to begin publishing hundreds of articles on the flaws of the Western democratic system, we would think "who are these peasants to instruct us in anything? What do they know? They aren't white and superior like us - even though we have committed the worst atrocities imaginable, we are almost infintely superior to them in all ways.

And the proof of that is how successful we were in raping, pillaging, plundering, and destroying their economies and people."

It's all stemming from colonial arrogance. It is true the Chinese really resent foreigners interfering in their internal affairs, all while pretending to want "what is best" for China.

The Western countries almost totally destroyed this country, setting its development back at least 75 years, and eviscerating the entire social fabric of the country. Absolute destruction, unconcsionable. The Chinese have seen enough of Western "democracy", "freedoms" and "human rights" to last them another century. Mao evicted all foreigners from China and nationalised all their assets - mostly obtained through the opium sales by the Sassoons and others.

Yes, the West has a lot to learn. And the first lesson is "live and let live". China knows where you are. If they want your advice, they will ask.

One final comment. You state that "many" Chinese are dissatisfied and even angry with their government. That claim may have no basis in reality. Again, in every poll done by Pew Research, Edelman, and others, consistently more than 85% of Chinese are happy with their government, compared with 23% for the US, and not much more for the other Western countries.

In a recent article, the Economist, in a state of great shock and perplexity, wrote that "a disconcertingly high percentage of the Chinese people appear happy with their government."

Why "disconcertingly"? Because I am the colonial master and you colonies should see the superiority of my ways. How can you possibly be content with something I didn't bestow upon you?

It is naive for the great majority the population of the western countries to believe that their institutions, their press and their systems are superior to their counterparts in China. Take the case of two institutions, namely, the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Most people in the western countries believe that these two institutions are non-partisan and are models of honesty and integrity. And, because of this belief, they would take whatever these two institutions say and write as the Truth. But how naive they are! In fact these two institutions have been created to protect and to further the interest of their paymaster. And, we all know who is their paymaster. Can they do otherwise? Of course, not; because should they act contrary to the wishes of their paymaster, should they not further the interests of their paymaster, their funding would be immediately cut off and their personnel would be laid off. So, in order to save their jobs, in order to ensure their salaries to feed themselves and their families, they must protect and further the interests of their paymaster. Every year, the Human Rights Watch prepare and publish a report on human rights abuses in all countries execept one. Do the population in the western countries ever ask the reason for this omission? Do they believe that in this particular country, there is absolutely no human rights abuses? If the Human Rights Watch organisation deliberately omit to mention one particular country in their report, what is then the value of their report? And can we believe in the honesty and integrity of whatever they produce and publish?
The population in the western countries also naively believe that their political systems and their political institutions are the heights of perfection so much so that they must be imposed on other countries, either through propaganda, subversive activities and even by shooting and bombing and killing the population of those countries that do not wish to adopt their systems and institutions. How many countries have been invaded because of this naive belief? How many people have been killed and mutilated because of this naive belief? How much money has been used to for subversive or even terrorist activities? Liu Xiaobo, for example, is paid by a western country through a western agency to carry out subversive activities in China.

In my view, the "returns" from infrastructure projects in a poor developing country are much more significant than building similar infrastructure in a developed countries like the UK or the US. For example, the Qinghai Tibetan railway which opens up the virgin Chinese West is much more important economically than say a high speed rail between London and Birmingham. I would term this as the "reverse domino effect". The unprecedented Chinese economic miracle may be explained in terms of the massive investment in infrastructure during the past thirty years by the Chinese Government.

“Speaking of the pace of development and of decisio-making, the other day I was reading that the UK intends to build a high speed rail between London and Birmingham, a distance of about 400 kms. It has taken more than five years to make the decision; the final study and the acquisition of land will take another ten years; and the construction another 10 years. It is expected that the railway will be open by 2032. How long did it take for China to build a 7,000 kilometer high speed rail system? Which of the two is faster? And there might be delays, too. Though I do not recall the cost of construction, I am sure it will cost more than the cost to build the high-speed rail between Beijing and Shanghai, which covers more than 1,300 kilometres.”

That is because the China does not play by the international rules and procedures which require at least 25 years to build a 400 km high speed rail. Her economy grows by about 10% per year when the international economic growth speed limit is 3% per year. China is able to have such achievements because she cheats on any and every thing where we in the West would not do. Moreover, she violates the human rights of her people with such high speed rail travels which her people do not want.

We, in the West, have proven beyond all doubts that economic central planning does not work. So this is self-evidence that China must have cheated to have such achievements or she simply publishes massaged economic data.

When China does not cheat, she plays unfairly like having two sets of President and Prime Minister, one present and the other future, while we in the West have only one. This is clearly not a level playing field. Worst of all, China keeps subsidizing massively her state-owned and private enterprises for decades not only without bankrupting the country, but also amasses a foreign exchange reserves of over 3,200,000,000,000 dollars.

Ipc1998,
Are there international rules and procedures with regards to the speed of economic growth and the speed of infrastructure construction?
This is new to me. Anyway, suppose there are such international rules and procedures, who sets them? Who determines them?
Are you implying that the rate of economic growth in the western countries automatically becomes the international rule for all other countries and that any country that exceeds this rate is by definition a cheater? Do you mean that if the UK takes 20 years yo build a railway line of 400 kms, then this automatically becomes the international rule with regards to the speed at which railway lines should be built? And any coubtry that builds railway line faster or slower is a cheater?
Don't you think there is something not quite right in your argument and in your mind?
Grow up, my dear. The UK is not the rules-setter. And it is not that when China does something in a different way that it is cheating.
I know you are not the only person that commits this mistake, but you will agree with me that it is very childish and naive to think that a particular country has the right to set thr rules and procedures with regards to the pace of economic development and with regards to political systems, political institutions and political procedures. To disparage such an important event as thr NPC meeting in China is an insult to 1.34 billion Chinese. It would be like disparaging the State of the Union address in the US or the Queen's speech in the UK. I do not think that the process of law-creation in the democratic countries is superior to the one in China.

Maybe I am naiive. You are very bitter and cynical, as well as self-pitying. I wrote a post about high-speed trains, and I get back a diatribe about how I am responsible for the wounded feelings of the Chinese nation, how I think the Western system is perfect and I'm trying to impose it forcibly on China. None of which I wrote, but never mind. I have a message for you. Whatever happened in the past, get over it. China is not the only nation on earth to have suffered. My country was invaded by the French, it was invaded by the Vikings, it would have been invaded by the Germans if we hadn't won the Battle of Britain by the skin of our teeth. Our cities were flattened by aerial bombardment. Russia lost 15 million people in the Second World War: they're not still bleating about it. Many of Germany's cities were utterly destroyed: they've got over it. Japan is the only country to have had atomic bombs dropped on it: they don't whine about it all the time. The outside world is not a hostile force that is plotting China's downfall. The world has no ill will towards China at all.

Finally, I'm pleased to say that many people in your wonderful country do not share your victim complex, and can recognise the many benefits that China has gained from engagement with the outside world. More power to them.

So, tell your government to stop participating in wars if your country has had such a string of bad experience. Why did the UK bomb Libya? Why did it invade Iraq? Why did it invade Afghanistan? Simply because another country induced it to do so? Has your country become a country of mercenaries? China has chosen peace and to rely on dialogues to resolve conflicts. Why does your country not do the same? What does it have to ally with warmongers?

whatever political system you prefer , it is an aberrant ,lewd ,and imbruted system if the grassroot majority of handosme is oppressed and can not develop normally in career only for the ruling bloc 's endless lust...

"Are you implying that the rate of economic growth in the western countries automatically becomes the international rule for all other countries and that any country that exceeds this rate is by definition a cheater? Do you mean that if the UK takes 20 years yo build a railway line of 400 kms, then this automatically becomes the international rule with regards to the speed at which railway lines should be built? And any coubtry that builds railway line faster or slower is a cheater?"

it's so much clear to me that ipc1998 was sarcastic and he's very pro china like you are, gosh somebody just didn't read carefully enough.... what's wrong with you?

"The outside world is not a hostile force that is plotting China's downfall. The world has no ill will towards China at all. "
---------------------

You really want Chinese people to believe that. Why so many negative reports of CHina? Why so many false report of Tibetan riots in 2008? Why so many one-side baised report favour to minorities Chinese, infact the minorities were/are treated much better than Han Chinese?

The west is not plotting China's downfall, but certainly plotting to stop/slow China's rise.

forms a mental segerate so handsome, destroyed careers do? Look at it? Why at the grassroots level, discrimination in the country, cooperate with each other in the progressive degradation of extinction? Handsome, professional grass-roots and is the basis of legitimacy of the mass Mojority United Kingdom ruled the unpleasant feeling in China, establishing his oppression of the June, will not weaken the emotional abuse,

I think it's because the Chinese media refuse to report these items with any sort of candor. It is not true that minorities are often treated better than the Han. Look at per capita incomes, life expectancy, and the fact that the "Autonomous Regions" are all ruled by Han party bosses. How many minorities are represented in the Politburo? How many own top companies in China? The only minority that was very successful (Rebiya Kadeer) got forced out on nonsensical political charges.

If you compare this to the UK where Scotland is peacefully holding a referendum on separating from the union, it makes China look like a pretty big jerk. China could never hold this kind of referendum in Tibet because the Tibetans are only being held to the rest of China through force.

If a Chinese newspaper would have the guts to write an opinion piece to this effect, I think my opinion would dramatically change.

ok, a little clearer really. However this grassroots majority handsome profession rights legitimacy in UK will makes the China ruling bloc so crazy ,upset to such a degree ?

Anyway ,This is enough to prove the aberrant of the China ruling bloc who want to annihilate the handsome for the lewd and evil purpose of grabbing the Chinease female they desire to keep as concubines.

That proved you know NOTHING about minorities in China.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people
The average life expectancy for Tibetans rose from 35 years in 1950s to over 65 years in the 2000s.
If minority want to be in politic then first they should join the party and learn Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region
As a matter of convention, the Chairman has almost always been an ethnic Tibetan, while the party secretary has almost always been a non-Tibetan. The current Chairman is Padma Choling and the current party secretary is Zhang Qingli."
Chairman is always Tibetan, but secretary is always Han Chinese.

China see Rebiya Kadeer as a seperatist.

It will not change your opinion anyway, why compare England and China. Two different tiers. Did ENgland give back Folkland to Argentiner? NO!

Not that I want to get into a debate with your usual long list of non-sequiturs, but I would make one short observation.

I may not wish to try my hand at brain surgery, but if I had to have a brain operation I might indeed wish to choose the surgeon who will operate. Though I may not be qualified in brain surgery myself, I can look at the record and reputation of the surgeon among his peers. I can check whether any patients have died in his care, whether he has won awards, how many years of experience he has, whether he has ever been the subject of any malpractice suits. If I feel unsure of how to make the assessment, I can seek expert advice. If I make a bad choice, it's still my choice and my right. It's my brain, after all.

The analogy with democracy is very apt. Democracy doesn't mean that everybody has the right to try their hand at running the government. It means that they have the right to choose their government (among other things). It is a question of control over matters in which we have a legitimate interest. I regard how and who I am governed by as a matter of legitimate interest to me, and I will exercise my influence over that in so far as I am able.

bardamu, I would have to say you are not so much making an argument as you are defending an ideology.

If I may say so, you are more directly affected by the CEO of whatever company you work for, and by your immediate supervisor, than you are by the national Minister of Agriculture.

If you want to "exercise your influence", it might be better to begin there.

But you trivialise the main point, which is that you are as incompetent (no offense) to evaluate and select your company's CEO or the Minister of Agriculture as you are a brain surgeon.

You're smart enough to know that you, as a layman, have no credentials to do any of those evaluations. These can be done only at the peer level. And that is why China has exceptionally qualified government executives compared to all the Western countries - whose MLAs and Representatives are chosen by "the man in the street".

And that incompetence is also why that same common man should be prevented by the system from ever having a chance to enter the government. As in China.

If Siemens, or Boeing Aircraft, need a new CEO, would you make the claim that you are competent to evaluate them and make the best selection from the three or four candidates, by "looking at theiir records and checking their reputations among their peers?

A member of parliament or a PM has a much larger job than that of a corporate CEO, so if you can't do the former, you surely could not do the latter.

The reason these selections can be done only at the peer level - or above - is that we cannot sensibly evaluate anyone for a position without being intimately familiar with the specific duties of that position, and without knowing precisely the kinds of qualities are required.

We might be able to evaluate an immediate supervisor because his job may have much intimate contact with ours, but even then much of the selection would be done in the dark.

Most intelligent and university-educated laymen would stumble around and be helpless in selecting a local overseer for 25 KFC outlets, much less a minister of finance.

And why is it that even the manager of a KFC or 7-11 needs credentials, but the man running in the election who may well become the Minister of Something - needs none at all.

If you examine our Western "democratic" system with an open mind, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if you wanted to design a really stupid system of government, you couldn't do much better than what we have now. If corporations did it, they would all be bankrupt. Like the US and soon the UK.

Why do you persist in being provocative and obnoxious? Nobody is trying to pick a fight with you, but you insist on slinging insults at anyone who disagrees with you - or whom you happen to envy.

Wen didn't say a damned thing about "democracy". He said "political reform" is needed to ensure that past mistakes won't be repeated. It's only wishful thinking in a Western mind that equates that reform with a Western multi-party failed system.

He said the mistakes of the cultural revolution and feudalism have yet to be fully eliminated, and changes should be made now, to ensure China's continued peaceful growth.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You really should try reading before you write. This is from the Xinhua report:

"We should encourage people to follow the path to
experiment boldly and withstand tests in practice," he added. "I believe China's democracy will develop in a step-by-step manner according to the national circumstances and the trend is unstoppable by any force."

He also specifically talked about Wukan, praised the resolution of that dispute and said that if villagers can elect their leaders, then why not a county and why not a town.

Yes, I know the passages you quoted, and I should have been more precise. But you did take them out of context and you did alter the sentiment.

First, Wen was not speaking of "democracy" and especially Western multi-party democracy for China's national government - which was the topic you and I were debating. You moved on to village elections (and introduced quotes related to that), without specifying that you had done so.

Wen was speaking on the subject of village self-governance, in response to illegal land sales and the abuse of power by small village big-shots. It was in that context that his remarks were made, and for this when he said the trend (toward self-governance) would not stop.

He was in no way suggesting the government would permit the fractionalisation of towns or villages into distinct ideological groups, as per the Western model, but simply stating that villages could be able to "govern themselves."

But all that was in the broader overall context, according to him, of lessons not fully learned from the abuses of the cultural revolution, and Wen was cautioning that if injustices are permitted to continue, the country might well have another revolution.

There is nothing (that I am aware of) in either his comments or those of any other senior government official, about what you call "democracy" - the Western multi-party system - ever existing on a national level in China.

It is irresponsible of you to make that link when it doesn't exist, and it is dishonest to do so deliberately only for the purpose of scoring cheap points.

It occurs to me that your methods of discourse and debate appear to come almost verbatim from the "Hasbara Handbook for Promoting Israel on US Campuses". The "point scoring", the "Seven basic propaganda devices" - name calling, generalities, transfer, testimonial, plain folks, bandwagon . . . Is there a reason for that?

And lest we get sidetracked, our debate was not about small village self-governance, but rather the incompetence of the man in the street to evaluate and select government leaders at levels far above his own.

As well, the incompetence of the same man in the street to consider himself a worthy candidate for a high-level government position for which he has no education, training, experience or ability to support him - in fact, no credentials of any kind for the job.

So there are no "distinct ideological groups" in China, as opposed to the West. Er.... seen the news today?

So Wen didn't say a damned thing about democracy. Well, okay, he did. Only when Wen talks about "democracy", he doesn't mean democracy, he means something else. He's talking about ordinary people voting for their leaders. Er...

Oh dear. I see we're back to anti-semitism. I'll take my leave at this point, I find it all rather repulsive. I'm not Jewish, by the way.

East wind, I think you just don't understand, as a mainlander Chinese we are in China just fearing that the ccp stops reform and too proud of the success of the past then the country will just stop progress, so a few criticism isn't hurt at all I think....

@eastwind
Almost all of the above were true for Japan 1989. Look at where we are today. We serve as the shape of the things to come for China, unless the Chinese does things very differently from how we used to do them...

At present rate, there will be a major nuclear catastrophe in China sometime in 2030s at the latest.

Most of our Chinese posters, how mostly happen to be 10 year old boys and girls, with hyper active imaginations, think the Economist is trying to slander China in this article. Well I disagree. What the Economist at first is presenting is the typical Western argument that the NPC is a rubber stamp parliament. But midway through it says the following

"In these ways, the NPC plays a meaningful and increasingly important role in China’s governance. And there are some political scientists, Chinese and foreign alike, who reckon that China’s system may evolve in ways that give the legislature genuine independence and substantial power in decades to come."

It then present some interesting points to support this statement. I guess when you are 10 or 12, you don't have the concentration to read the whole article.

Chinese boys and girls of only 10 old just can't read and comment on here even he started learning English very young, I think most of the posters you imply are actually overseas Chinese.... Seriously the comments are far more interesting than the article and guess what, I ofter skip the article and come to the comment board immediately, I think you get more concentration when reading a article printed on paper than on computer screen, I think some scientists should do some studies on this and I'd like to know, they have done tones of studies on why people got fat which is just silly, isn't clear that you got fat just because you eat too much??

hey Bismarck, guess what, last time you said China didn't accept the double citizenship, and now some legislator said in the meeting that double citizenship has really been there in reality and then perhaps China should amen the law and make it legal and acceptable in China in book, and you are going to expect that to be discussed and law amened very soon, you know when comrades speak and do things fast. ;)

Unlike you they have an excuse, they are young. You on the other hand choose not to read the article, and start pontificating. People start criticizing the article when they only read 50% (ie first half). How can the Economist make an argument without presenting the opposing side. It first said that most Western journalist including the Economist feel that the NPC is a rubber stamp parliament, then it says that its changing. It also toward the end says that some Western institutions are also rubber stamp. Actually this article was far from being a China bashing article, but unfortunately alot of our 10-12 year posters with "Little Emperor" syndrome think otherwise.

The problem is you take an insult to the posters in the Economist as an insult to China. First off I can say what I want. Secondly, most of the posters here did not read the article in its entirety, and proceed to bash the Economist for being unfair. Its clear you flunked your lectures on Hegel's dialectic. The Economist lays out that most Western publications view the NPC as a rubber stamp, then develops an argument to refute it. The problem, is like most Chinese posters, you are not used to presenting an opposing view point, before preceding to critique it. That is what the Economist did. You just want to say that "China is Great blah blah". I am not insulting anyone, I just said that few people actually read the article, you included. Even if you did, your immaturity and emotion baggage prevented you from getting past the first two paragraphs.

Bismarck888,
Maybe you do not understand it; but if most of the posters read the article in a certain way, it means that almost all the readers read the same article in the same way, because the posters are a sample of the population. Just like an out-of-poll survey tells you with surprising accuracy the result of an election, so the views of the posters tell you accurately the opinion of the population. And if you call the posters 10 year old kids, it means that the whole population who read this article are ten years old. Which is unlikely; so that I believe you are the odd one and the ten year old kid.

So you have "quarrels" with other people on the user comment sections of the internet?

Sounds like you take the user comments section internet way too seriously.... But of course the only people who take the user comments section of the internet seriously are people who are completely irrelevant and who are not taken seriously in real life.

The thing is that I don't actually pick sides and fight any wars on this forum.
.
The sole purpose of me being here is to learn more about the world. I happen to bash absurd stupidities (watchingchina) that I come across, but that's only because I'm already reading the garbage anyways and it doesn't take much time (maybe ~5-10 seconds per average post) to also bash them, which I find enjoyable.

Ha ha, your posts are funny Monkey Troll, that is for sure! Almost better than watching porn. But I'm curious...why are you so bitter? Did your mum not give you enough hugs when you were a wee little lad? Or is it just that you have a wee little willy? Inquiring minds want to know!

The point is you put words into the mouth of the Economist. In the first paragraph, the Economist was describing how it and other western publications typically view the NPC - Rubber Stamp. But then critiques its own assessment. People did not read the second half of the article. They were so upset with reading the first part they start to post comments criticizing the Economist. Its really sad. It shows most posters have the attention span of a 10 year old after snorting a bag of candy.

Its not a difference in one's view points. Most of the people here just used it as an opportunity to set up a strawman, and unfortunately criticized the article by calling anti-China etc. The only reason I can come up with is they didn't read the whole thing.

Here is a section in the second half:

"None of this is to say that the NPC is entirely irrelevant. In important ways, the NPC—as an institution—has become more interesting than its ritual-laden yearly sessions would indicate. Its full-time professional staff has grown in size and professionalism. In the course of drafting legislation, it has taken great strides in reaching out to social stakeholders and soliciting their input. Often it even pushes back against the Communist party leadership by insisting on substantial revisions to draft laws before moving them along."

Then here is another section

"In these ways, the NPC plays a meaningful and increasingly important role in China’s governance. And there are some political scientists, Chinese and foreign alike, who reckon that China’s system may evolve in ways that give the legislature genuine independence and substantial power in decades to come."

If, as you wrote, most of the posters have read the article in the way you described it, then most of the readers of the article must have it in the same way. So either the author of the article was not able to express his views or you have not read it correctly.

As always you tried to put words into the mouth of other posters here. It is not ONLY shows you have the attention span of a 10 year old after snorting a bag of candy, but actually you are an old man with 10 years old mentality. ;-)

so according to you logic the mere mentioning of Hegel's dialectic then he's defending Jewish, Hegal and Bismarck were both German first and great German second and why didn't you just tell us he's defending Germany?? gosh you are just not logic these days, next time I guess you are going to accuse him of defending Jewish too if he's talking about Einstein's famous apple, that one that cracked up his head and from there was the birth of the theory of relativity. lol since the Modern Troll I have found tons of illogic in your posts. ;)

looks like Von Jizmark is worked up again. he is getting so furious that people actually dare to disagree with him that he is foaming at the mouth and stomping his little angry feet. How dare people disagree with Von Jizmark!

Most of our Chinese posters, how mostly happen to be 10 year old boys and girls, with hyper active imaginations, think the Economist is trying to slander China in this article. Well I disagree. What the Economist at first is presenting is the typical Western argument that the NPC is a rubber stamp parliament. But midway through it says the following

"In these ways, the NPC plays a meaningful and increasingly important role in China’s governance. And there are some political scientists, Chinese and foreign alike, who reckon that China’s system may evolve in ways that give the legislature genuine independence and substantial power in decades to come."

It then present some interesting points to support this statement. I guess when you are 10 or 12, you don't have the concentration to read the whole article.

Bismarck888,
Maybe you do not understand it; but if most of the posters read the article in a certain way, it means that almost all the readers read the same article in the same way, because the posters are a sample of the population. Just like an out-of-poll survey tells you with surprising accuracy the result of an election, so the views of the posters tell you accurately the opinion of the population. And if you call the posters 10 year old kids, it means that the whole population who read this article are ten years old. Which is unlikely; so that I believe you are the odd one and the ten year old kid.

Great men and women have fallen to dementia, even in this modern age. Who would have thought the two most prominent cold warriors of the 1980s (Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) would both succumb to the same disease...

Great men and women have fallen to dementia, even in this modern age. Who would have thought the two most prominent cold warriors of the 1980s (Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) would both succumb to the same disease...
---------------------
Do they believe in Karma!!
;-)